Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification over Individuals or Situations?

Abstract

In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals.

A unified analysis of conditionals as topics

“…Hence the crucial issue is the analysis of the quantificational adverb and its combination with the if -clause denotation. At this point, we recur to Ebert and Hinterwimmer (2010), which is compatible with the assumptions in the present paper. One of the key assumptions there is that adverbial quantifiers combine with their arguments in reverse order, seen from the perspective of determiner quantification.…”

The syntax of generics and the absence of generic articles

“…The quantificational variability effect itself however has come under some scrutiny, with proposals that its effects ultimately reflect quantification over events/situations, not individuals (Ebert & Hinterwimmer 2010), potentially weakening the appeal of taking A-quantifiers to directly license nominal structure. 8 Just as I am suggesting that GEN licenses several functional projections on a D-quantifier analysis, on a A-quantifier analysis, GEN could license other functional verbal projections in addition to EP, like AspP (the verbal equivalent of nominal #P).…”

Accessing the availability of inverse scope in German in the covered box paradigm

“…The reduced form of the indefinite was chosen to control for potentially confounding effects of prosody. Since the reduced form cannot carry stress, two confounding interpretations are excluded: (i) an interpretation as a specific (numeral) indefinite NP (Ebert & Hinterwimmer 2010), which takes obligatory wide (surface) scope (Ebert 2009); (ii) an interpretation as a contrastive topic under the rise-fall-contour (Krifka 1998), which would confound towards the inverse reading. The nouns of both QPs were introduced in the context sentence as part of an embedded clause under a future-directed attitude verb (order, hope, promise, etc…).…”